search

gbif / occurrence-annotation

Experimental: Rule based annotation store
Apache License 2.0
0 stars 1 forks source link

I think we might need PRESENT and ABSENT #19

Open jhnwllr opened 1 year ago

jhnwllr commented 1 year ago

I think expanding the controlled vocab to include

will useful. There are some cases where "NATIVE" doesn't make sense or is not known, but it is known that it is "PRESENT".

timrobertson100 commented 1 year ago

Just a thought - should the vocabulary be hierarchical?

jhnwllr commented 1 year ago

First thoughts...

I think the previous arguments about avoiding "error types" still hold. https://github.com/gbif/occurrence-annotation/issues/14

So only PRESENT would be hierarchical. 

PRESENT
    NATIVE
    INTRODUCED
    MANAGED
    FORMER
    VAGRANT
    OTHER

ABSENT

SUSPICIOUS

Examples:

PRESENT + NATIVE ("I have good knowledge about this species and it is native in this polygon") PRESENT + NULL ("I know it occurs in Germany but I don't know if it's NATIVE or INTRODUCED") ABSENT ("I am absolutely sure this species has never and will never occur in Antarctica") ABSENT ("I am certain this tree cannot grow on top of this mountain") SUSPICIOUS ("I am fairly certain the country centroid of Australia is a suspicious location for this taxa") SUSPICIOUS + DATASETKEY ("Occurrences in this location for this dataset are suspicious, although other occurrences from other datasets might be ok")